Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Very Political Climate (Weather Channel climate expert responds to blog fervor)
The Weather Channel ^ | 01/19/2007 | Heidi Cullen

Posted on 01/19/2007 7:49:54 AM PST by cogitator

I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.

Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.

Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.

The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.

However, know that we here are focused on moving this discussion forward.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; climate; climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarmingfraud; heidicullen; politicalpurge; theweatherchannel; thoughtcrime; warming; weather
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: weegee
I was always self reliant since about 14 years of age and I traveled to communist countries in oil exploration engineering.

I had always thought a smart person with education and hard work being able to have a good life.

The people living under the slave state of Communism had very poor lives.

On my trip to the University of Brno, I waited until about 1 PM before I asked "When do you go to lunch?".

The reply was "We don't take a lunch break".

A high up in the College heard this and the next day, I was escorted to several class rooms at 12 noon where the people were eating fried chicken.

I was both self reliant and apolitical, this turned me against all forms of socialism.
61 posted on 01/19/2007 8:51:22 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
...glaciers are melting, ...

Actually most glaciers are growing. About 45% of the measured glaciers are shrinking.

62 posted on 01/19/2007 8:54:48 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator


>I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.<

You're a skeptic? And you bite in to global warming?

>AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.<

What are your sources on this?

>Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.<

Excellent. What are your sources on this?

>Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."<

Oh right, the consensus argument. You know, we don't need consensus on the idea that 1 plus 1 equals 2 - we can just prove it. So why do we need consensus on global warming when you just said we could prove it?

>I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.<

...you're advocating punishing people who don't hold to the myth of global warming. You want their creditials taken away and you want them not to get jobs in weather reporting. I'd call that silencing them - especially when you just got done saying that part of your job as a weather girl is informing people about global warming...

>Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.<

But that's what you're doing.

>Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.<

And the harm caused from scaring people with myths?

>Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.<

You just advocated silencing people who disagree. How is the general public to decide for themselves when they only hear one line?

>The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.<

Yeah - until you provide some hard evidence, you've got a serious problem.

>That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.<

Why? So open minded, accepting, tolerant people like yourself can call them names and belittle them publically?


63 posted on 01/19/2007 8:58:58 AM PST by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doodad

Cavemen in Hummers.


64 posted on 01/19/2007 9:01:39 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
lol

To say nothing of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

65 posted on 01/19/2007 9:04:33 AM PST by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up.
66 posted on 01/19/2007 9:08:48 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

ping for later


67 posted on 01/19/2007 9:17:03 AM PST by westmichman (The will of God always trumps the will of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider

My wife is a former USAF weather observor. She still chuckles whenever she hears the words "seven day forecast."


68 posted on 01/19/2007 9:17:56 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Testament is another one I remember from the Eighties. A total load of lib crap, but I have to tell you it was very effective when the emergency broadcast system broke into Sesame Street to warn of a nuclear attack.


69 posted on 01/19/2007 9:21:55 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Good point on consensus. Isaak Newton and his peers all agreed that space between the planets was empty, therefore the stones that fell from the sky from time to time were, by consensus of well-respected scientists, a phenomenon of the atmosphere; possibly due to the effect of lightning on aerosols.

There was a paper in Nature in 1924 that still referred to these stones as "thunderstones", even though Barringer Crater had been ID's as extraterrestrial in origin.
70 posted on 01/19/2007 9:22:58 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
But of course! Scientists are completely unbiased, impartial people with absolutely no ideological agendas or axes to grind whatsoever. In fact, they are the only human beings in existence who see Absolute Truth. How dare anyone question them?

I have been skeptical of global warming claims since I read an article by a warming advocate "scientist" who plainly stated that any evidence against the earth warming was so clearly incorrect that it can and should be ignored. This is just plain bad science of the worst sort.

And then there was the article which addressed claims against global warming stating that there was no political agenda behind global warming.

71 posted on 01/19/2007 9:26:32 AM PST by etlib (No creature without tentacles has ever developed true intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

Everyone says they're a skeptic. No one ever says "I just take what they spoon feed me." She probably thinks she really is one, the poor dear.


72 posted on 01/19/2007 9:26:34 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.




But it WAS her specific and deliberate intention to DECERTIFY ANY AMS member who DIDNT play the party line.

But, of course, not any intention to stifle discussion while de-certifying them.
73 posted on 01/19/2007 9:29:16 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; All

in the meantime, at the DU, they're buying into global warming, global climate change and other invented names

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3155677


74 posted on 01/19/2007 9:30:09 AM PST by GeorgiaDawg32 (I'm a Patriot Guard Rider..www.patriotguard.org for info..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
I haven't seen the movie, but I'm told that in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore shows a chart that is supposed to prove that CO2 caused global warming in the past*, but it also happens to prove that global warming is a natural cycle, because all of the CO2 + high temp periods are before the Industrial Revolution...indeed, most of them are before we had civilizations.

*It doesn't prove it, it only proves that at times of high temp we also have high CO2. The high temps could be causing the high CO2 by causing it to outgas from the increasingly warmer oceans.

75 posted on 01/19/2007 9:30:24 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Yeah! And what caused the Pamlico Terrace ridge that you can see from the road in Florida, which marks a shorline that existed about 125,000 years ago when sea levels were 25 feet higher than they are now and Florida was about one half its current size?

Ignorant people are gullible people, and gullible people fall for the man-caused-global-warming scenario because they are ignorant of basic earth science. It's disturbing how many people are surprised to learn that the polar ice caps have melted and refrozen many times in the earth's history, or that there is pretty strong evidence of mass global-wide extinctions happening many times, or that a look at ice core drillings that date 10,000 years or even 200,000 years represent a time span that is nothing -- less than the blink of an eye in the context of earth's past.

More folks should grab geology and paleontology books and read them for kicks just for a basic education -- and then do what I did, read Gore's "Earth in the Balance" and see how many BLATANLY false statements he makes in the book that you may not have known were false if you hadn't just read some of the latest books on paleontology and geology.

76 posted on 01/19/2007 9:30:55 AM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
1920's?

One remarkable thing about Barringer Crater was that even through the mid-60's (until Apollo landed!) there was FIERCE opposition to the theory that the moon's craters were due to meteor impact.

Continental drift was opposed since it was first proposed seriously in the 1920's .... until the seabed surveys in the late 60's showed the undersea mountain ridges in the north pacific WERE more recent than the floor further from the rift zones.
77 posted on 01/19/2007 9:33:26 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
If I can, I'll send her this link, well the actual link to the article on The American Thinker. I don't think she'll have an appreciation for FR:

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

78 posted on 01/19/2007 9:36:37 AM PST by b4its2late (Liberalism is a hollow log and a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Finny

Great posts!


79 posted on 01/19/2007 9:44:08 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: weegee
I want a scientist to tell me when LIFE begins. Then we can take this evidence to the legislature to prohibit abortion of children who reach that threshhold ("alive").

Sorry, but science can't determine that anything is right or wrong. Only G-d can. I suggest you forget about what scientists say and work for G-d's standards rather than man's to be adopted.

80 posted on 01/19/2007 10:00:59 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator ("Shallach 'et-`ammi, veya`avduni!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson